Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Official Historical Position of the Russian Church Abroad

Expand Messages
  • Michael Malloy
    ... Fortunately, I am not familiar with the rewriting Fr. Alexander mentions. It is understandable that people cannot forgive the state sanctioned murder of
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff"
      <lebedeff@w...> wrote:
      >
      > In the midst of accusations that some people are "rewriting the
      > history of the Church Abroad"...

      Fortunately, I am not familiar with the "rewriting" Fr. Alexander
      mentions. It is understandable that people cannot forgive the state
      sanctioned murder of their family members during the Soviet Era.

      > "What shall we say about the canonical status of the Russian
      > Church Abroad?
      >
      > "First of all, that she may exist only on condition of horrible
      > persecution of the Russian Church in the U.S.S.R. on the part of
      > militant atheists, who have set themselves the aim of totally
      > annihilating the Church and striving by all means to achieve this.

      This is perfectly clear.
      >
      > "Under normal conditions of life, we repeat once again, An
      > **independent** state of existence of a part of the Russian Church
      > outside the borders of Russia would be **impossible** and
      > **unthinkable.** But even now there is a limit to this (i.e.
      > independent) existence - the cessation of persecutions of the
      > Church and her freedom in Russia.
      >
      > "From this we conclude, that the existence of the Russian Church
      > Abroad is a **temporary** phenomenon, **conditional upon**
      > persecutions of the Russian Church. If you like, **an abnormal**
      > condition. " (Page 61)

      Even as an outsider, this is what I have always been taught. Thank
      God the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has maintained the
      faith in the diaspora while at the same time making this faith
      accessable to those not born into it.

      The very little I understand of the current talks with the MP suggest
      a self governed ROCOR much as it is now rather than a loss of the true
      faith.

      Reader Michael Malloy
      Columbus OH
    • michael nikitin
      Yes, we will be self governing until we want bishops. Then we have to get a blessing from the MP s Patriarch. We cannot make someone a bishop for ourselves
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, we will be self governing until we want bishops. Then we have to get a blessing from the MP's Patriarch.
        We cannot make someone a bishop for ourselves unless the Patriarch approves and gives his blessing. Yes, freedom or self governing, but not on making a bishop. This is what an Autonomous Church is.

        Michael N


        Michael Malloy <sputnikpsalomschchika@...> wrote: ---
        The very little I understand of the current talks with the MP suggest
        a self governed ROCOR much as it is now rather than a loss of the true faith.

        Reader Michael Malloy
        Columbus OH




        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • vkozyreff
        Dear Michael, An autonomous Church is one that depends on a mother Church, not an independent one. The Mother Church can rescind the autonomy at any time. If
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Michael,

          An autonomous Church is one that depends on a mother Church, not an
          independent one.

          The Mother Church can rescind the autonomy at any time.

          If we believe that the MP is the true Church, we must unite at once.

          If we negotiate, it shows that we have doubts.

          The uniates have "kept their faith" and our creed. Their regognising
          the papal authority and supporting herresy however is what make them
          apostates and heretics.

          If we commemorate a false patriach and get our legitimacy from a
          false Church, we are not the true Church any longer. Commemorating a
          bishop is not only a formula.

          Should we bow before a false Church, and thus clearly show to the
          world that they may consider a false Church as a true one, we would
          betray God and serve the devil.

          "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and
          worship me." Matthew 4, 9

          In God,

          Vladimir Kozyreff


          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Malloy"
          <sputnikpsalomschchika@y...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff"
          > <lebedeff@w...> wrote:
          > >
          > > In the midst of accusations that some people are "rewriting the
          > > history of the Church Abroad"...
          >
          > Fortunately, I am not familiar with the "rewriting" Fr. Alexander
          > mentions. It is understandable that people cannot forgive the state
          > sanctioned murder of their family members during the Soviet Era.
          >
          > > "What shall we say about the canonical status of the Russian
          > > Church Abroad?
          > >
          > > "First of all, that she may exist only on condition of
          horrible
          > > persecution of the Russian Church in the U.S.S.R. on the part of
          > > militant atheists, who have set themselves the aim of totally
          > > annihilating the Church and striving by all means to achieve this.
          >
          > This is perfectly clear.
          > >
          > > "Under normal conditions of life, we repeat once again, An
          > > **independent** state of existence of a part of the Russian
          Church
          > > outside the borders of Russia would be **impossible** and
          > > **unthinkable.** But even now there is a limit to this (i.e.
          > > independent) existence - the cessation of persecutions of the
          > > Church and her freedom in Russia.
          > >
          > > "From this we conclude, that the existence of the Russian
          Church
          > > Abroad is a **temporary** phenomenon, **conditional upon**
          > > persecutions of the Russian Church. If you like, **an abnormal**
          > > condition. " (Page 61)
          >
          > Even as an outsider, this is what I have always been taught. Thank
          > God the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has maintained the
          > faith in the diaspora while at the same time making this faith
          > accessable to those not born into it.
          >
          > The very little I understand of the current talks with the MP
          suggest
          > a self governed ROCOR much as it is now rather than a loss of the
          true
          > faith.
          >
          > Reader Michael Malloy
          > Columbus OH
          >
        • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
          ... One would certainly think that in the 78 years since the time of the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, or 62 years since Stalin allowed the election
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

            >Should we bow before a false Church, and thus clearly show to the
            >world that they may consider a false Church as a true one, we would
            >betray God and serve the devil.

            One would certainly think that in the 78 years since the time of the
            "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius, or 62 years since Stalin
            allowed the election of a Patriarch of Russia, the Russian Orthodox
            Church Outside of Russia would have issued at least **one** official
            statement explicitly declaring the Moscow Patriarchate to be a "false Church."

            That was certainly **not** the view of Metropolitan Anastassy, who
            stated (in 1953, at the Sobor of Bishops):

            "They say that Patriarch Alexy sinned more than his predecessor.
            Whether he sinned more or less, we cannot deny his ordination. Much
            is said of their apostasy. But we must be cautious. We can hardly
            make an outright accusation of apostasy. In no place do they affirm
            atheism. In their published sermons they attempt to hold to the
            Orthodox line. They took and continue to take very strict measures
            with regard to the obnovlentsy, and did not tear their ties with
            Patriarch Tikhon. The false policy belongs to the church authority
            and the responsibility for it falls on its leaders. Only heresy
            adopted by the whole Church tarnishes the whole Church. In this case,
            the people are not responsible for the behavior of the leaders, and
            the Church, as such, remains unblemished."

            Vladimir--listen to Metropolitan Anastassy's words again: "the
            Church, as such," [he is talking about the Moscow Patriarchate
            here--saying that it, notwithstanding the "false policy" of its
            leaders] -- "remains unblemished."

            And this was all said long after the reestablishment of the
            Patriarchy in 1943, and after a large number of hyperbolic paeans by
            Patriarch Alexei I addressed to Stalin and well known to Metropolitan
            Anastassy.

            How can a Church which "remains unblemished" be a false Church?

            Also, Saint John of Shanghai wrote, in his Ukaz No. 650, to the
            Shanghai clergy, dated August 24, 1945, wrote:

            "Now, in view of the unquestionable (besspornogo) lawful (zakonnogo)
            heading (vozglavlenia) of the Russian Church by His Holiness
            Patriarch Alexei, elected by the All-Russian Church Council to
            succeed the reposed Patriarch Sergius, and recognized, as was his
            predecessor, by all of the autocephalous Churches, it is required, as
            in the past, to commemorate the name of the Head of the Russian
            Church, replacing the temporarily used expression: "the orthodox episcopate."

            "Therefore 1) at litanies, the Great Entrance and after the
            consecration of the Gifts TO COMMMEMORATE "OUR MASTER AND FATHER HIS
            HOLINESS ALEXEI, PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW AND ALL RUSSIA; 2) at the many
            years at the end of the service after "the holy orthodox patriarchs"
            to say the same; 3) after His Holiness the Patriarch to commemorate
            the other hierarchs, commemorated in the local churches." [Emphasis
            in the original Ukaz].

            Do you believe that St. John, who was clairvoyant, could not tell the
            difference between a "false Church" and a true one?

            Why do you, Vladimir, presume to have more discernment regarding the
            Moscow Patriarchate than did Metropolitan Anastassy or St. John of
            Shanghai and San Francisco?

            With love in Christ,

            Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
          • vkozyreff
            Dear Father Alexander, bless. You quote Metropolitan Anastassy (whom ROCOR clerics on this forum accuse of sergianism vis à vis Hilter, now) as saying: The
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Father Alexander, bless.

              You quote Metropolitan Anastassy (whom ROCOR clerics on this forum
              accuse of sergianism vis à vis Hilter, now) as saying: "The false
              policy belongs to the church authority and the responsibility for it
              falls on its leaders. Only heresy adopted by the whole Church
              tarnishes the whole Church. In this case, the people are not
              responsible for the behavior of the leaders, and the Church, as
              such, remains unblemished."

              Indeed, Vl Anastassy distinguished between the leaders and the
              believers. He accused the first ones and supports the second ones. He
              says that the mistakes of the leadres are separate from the Church
              herself. That is why the leaders (the MP with which you "negotiate")
              do not represent the true Church.

              Your quote of St John has been discussed previously on this forum. It
              appears that he never supported the MP leadership. He said: "One's
              attitude to this hierarchy can be the same as to the other
              representatives of this regime." Archbishop John, manuscript, Russkiy
              Pastyr Archive.

              In God,

              Vladimir Kozyreff

              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff"
              <lebedeff@w...> wrote:
              >



              > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
              >
              > >Should we bow before a false Church, and thus clearly show to the
              > >world that they may consider a false Church as a true one, we would
              > >betray God and serve the devil.
              >
              > One would certainly think that in the 78 years since the time of
              the
              > "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius, or 62 years since Stalin
              > allowed the election of a Patriarch of Russia, the Russian Orthodox
              > Church Outside of Russia would have issued at least **one**
              official
              > statement explicitly declaring the Moscow Patriarchate to be
              a "false Church."
              >
              > That was certainly **not** the view of Metropolitan Anastassy, who
              > stated (in 1953, at the Sobor of Bishops):
              >
              > "They say that Patriarch Alexy sinned more than his predecessor.
              > Whether he sinned more or less, we cannot deny his ordination. Much
              > is said of their apostasy. But we must be cautious. We can hardly
              > make an outright accusation of apostasy. In no place do they affirm
              > atheism. In their published sermons they attempt to hold to the
              > Orthodox line. They took and continue to take very strict measures
              > with regard to the obnovlentsy, and did not tear their ties with
              > Patriarch Tikhon. The false policy belongs to the church authority
              > and the responsibility for it falls on its leaders. Only heresy
              > adopted by the whole Church tarnishes the whole Church. In this
              case,
              > the people are not responsible for the behavior of the leaders, and
              > the Church, as such, remains unblemished."
              >
              > Vladimir--listen to Metropolitan Anastassy's words again: "the
              > Church, as such," [he is talking about the Moscow Patriarchate
              > here--saying that it, notwithstanding the "false policy" of its
              > leaders] -- "remains unblemished."
              >
              > And this was all said long after the reestablishment of the
              > Patriarchy in 1943, and after a large number of hyperbolic paeans
              by
              > Patriarch Alexei I addressed to Stalin and well known to
              Metropolitan
              > Anastassy.
              >
              > How can a Church which "remains unblemished" be a false Church?
              >
              > Also, Saint John of Shanghai wrote, in his Ukaz No. 650, to the
              > Shanghai clergy, dated August 24, 1945, wrote:
              >
              > "Now, in view of the unquestionable (besspornogo) lawful
              (zakonnogo)
              > heading (vozglavlenia) of the Russian Church by His Holiness
              > Patriarch Alexei, elected by the All-Russian Church Council to
              > succeed the reposed Patriarch Sergius, and recognized, as was his
              > predecessor, by all of the autocephalous Churches, it is required,
              as
              > in the past, to commemorate the name of the Head of the Russian
              > Church, replacing the temporarily used expression: "the orthodox
              episcopate."
              >
              > "Therefore 1) at litanies, the Great Entrance and after the
              > consecration of the Gifts TO COMMMEMORATE "OUR MASTER AND FATHER
              HIS
              > HOLINESS ALEXEI, PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW AND ALL RUSSIA; 2) at the many
              > years at the end of the service after "the holy orthodox
              patriarchs"
              > to say the same; 3) after His Holiness the Patriarch to commemorate
              > the other hierarchs, commemorated in the local churches." [Emphasis
              > in the original Ukaz].
              >
              > Do you believe that St. John, who was clairvoyant, could not tell
              the
              > difference between a "false Church" and a true one?
              >
              > Why do you, Vladimir, presume to have more discernment regarding
              the
              > Moscow Patriarchate than did Metropolitan Anastassy or St. John of
              > Shanghai and San Francisco?
              >
              > With love in Christ,
              >
              > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.